2024-02-14 12:15:34
The Supreme Court once again tips the balance in favor of consumers in a case of abusive mortgage clauses. Specifically, it has determined the nullity of a floor clause and a ceiling clause of a loan signed in 2008, despite the fact that years later the bank and client reached an agreement to eliminate said clauses in exchange for the consumer not making a claim. But the High Court considers that such agreement was not the result of “free and informed” consent, which is why it condemns the entity to return almost 1,800 euros to the affected person, plus the corresponding legal interest.
As explained by the reclamador.es portal, which has been in charge of the case, the consumer is a resident of Méntrida (Toledo) who bought his home with a mortgage loan that he took out in 2008 with Caja Castilla-La Mancha (CCM), absorbed by Liberbankin which the entity imposed a floor clause of 3% and a ceiling clause of 11%. The mortgage was for an amount of 112,000 euros.
“Already in 2014, and in order to protect its liability in the event of a possible lawsuit, the company offered the client a change of conditions in its loan: they eliminated the application of the floor clause and imposed a share renunciation clause, with the objective to prevent the client from claiming the amounts paid in excess due to the application of the aforementioned limit up to that moment,” the claimant details.
The case came to court in spring 2016, prompted by the consumer, who wanted to claim nullity between 2008 (date of signing the loan) and 2014 (when Liberbank eliminated the clause).
As the portal reports, the Court of First Instance and Instruction no. 3 of Torrijos (Toledo) declared the nullity of the floor clause and ordered Liberbank to return to the plaintiff the amounts overcharged for its application, considering that, at the time of contracting, the client was not duly informed of the operation and effects of the floor clause, which allows us to consider signing the agreement at a later time is irrelevant.
The entity appealed the sentence, which was again dismissed by the Provincial Court of Toledo, and Liberbank decided to present an extraordinary appeal for procedural and cassation infringement before the Supreme Court.
And the resolution of the High Court has been to declare the nullity of the floor clause that contained the mortgage loan, as well as the return of the extra amount paid by the client from 2008 to 2014. According to the Supreme Court, the waiver clause of actions suffer from a lack of transparency and the agreement signed between bank and client was not the result of “free and informed” consent on the part of the consumer. That is, the mortgaged party “was at no time aware of the effects of signing that agreement, so his signature does not validate the application of the initial floor clause,” they clarify from reclamador.es.
Justice, the best guarantee to recover money
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the bank must return approximately 1,760.70 euros to the mortgagee, plus legal interest. However, the claimant estimates that the money overpaid to the banks over the years for this clause It amounts to about 7,700 euros on average in Spainalthough the amount varies depending on factors such as the amount of the loan, the date of signing, the interest rate applied…
It is worth remembering that the floor clause is a contractual clause that established the minimum interest that had to be paid in the monthly installments of the mortgage contracted and the interest would start from there. Having a floor clause in a mortgage loan meant that, despite having contracted a variable interest loan, the client would not benefit from the drops that the Euribor could experience.
Leticia Grande, lawyer at reclamador.es, points out that “consumers must be very clear that the willingness of banks has never been good to return what was overcharged. But, despite the fact that the banks are not willing to recognize the abusiveness of the floor clauses and their effects and try to discourage claims, Justice is the best guarantee to get everything that is owed to themit is vital to walk hand in hand with a lawyer who specializes in the matter, who can accompany you along the way, no matter how long it may be.
#Supreme #Court #ruling #mortgage #floor #clauses #idealistanews